My mutterings on life, thoughts and actions.

Kenneth Clarke

Ken Clarke had a bit of an interesting day yesterday when his resignation was called for over his comments about different types of rape. However, looking through that specific issue and the way it has been blown up, the real meat of what is being suggested has been overshadowed and it is that which I feel is worthy of Ken Clarke losing his office.

When a defendant comes to court, they can plead guilty, and if they do it early on, then they can have their sentence reduced by a Third and this is true right up tot he beginning of the trial and a discount will be given, but it is greatly reduced from the third at the beginning. The point of this is that if a defendant admits guilt, then they reduce the burden of trial on the Victim, as well as reduce the costs of trials etc, and therefore reduced cost to us the taxpayer.

But what many people do not know is what goes on AFTER the courts have had their say. In essence the guilty criminal only generally serves half their prison sentence in prison. They get let out on licence at half way, then there is time off for good behaviour and other such stuff. So what could start at 6 months jail (Max for Magistrates for one offence) reduces quite quickly.

Now, for the people with no criminal record whatsoever, its the record that is the main problem, not the time. It really reduces job options, the social stigma etc. But once you have already got a record, then where is the deterrent? SO you do more time (or half of it anyway). And this is where the problem arises, there is great drive not to get on the criminal ladder, but what about getting off it?

In the grand scheme of things, many people say prison is not as deterrent, but under Labour while Prison population went up, then crime did go drastically down. Lets not forget, our system is a penal system, our major punishment is a restriction of liberty, the system is fundamentally geared round reform rather than punishment. To do that required major change.

Yes Ken, I agree, you should choose your words more carefully, but 50% is not the way to go either*. I think, instead, you should remove all post sentence “doctoring” and make the court the final say in sentence. We have to not only to ensure justice is done, but justice needs to be seen to be done for people to have trust in it. People already think that sentencing is already too lenient, what happens when people realise that thats only the skin on the surface of the story.

(*Just need to note that if this comes into law then while I disagree with it, I would comply with my duty to apply it as appropriate)

We have known for a while that legal aid was being reviewed by the Government because they believed that too many people were abusing the system. Such examples as anyone at Crown Court could claim legal aid, regardless of personal circumstance, added fuel to this passion to restrict funding, and on the face of it, why not? If you can afford to represent yourself, then you should, surely!

The problem has now been highlighted that these “Fair” cuts will not be as fair as we would really like. Take things like divorce, currently you could claim legal aid, but under new legislation, it will have to be funded privately, unless you are suffering from domestic violence, then you would get legal aid. I would not have a problem with this, apart from the fact that they have redefined Domestic Violence as Physical only. Therefore, all those partners coming under psychological abuse have now been abandoned until they get a good ole beating. In Family law, 62% of applications are by women, what does that tell you?

What really grips me about this type of cut is that it is the poor and needy that are being penalised for the actions of the rich. It is because those who could fund their own defence, who are just claiming legal aid because they can, and not thinking of the wider issues. I guess that’s like any benefit, people claim because they can, not because they need to. Critics are quick to blame the previous government for this, but just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Some people have lost their moral backbone, just because they think they are entitled. This is where the welfare state falls over, not because of its intentions, but because people are inherently human. Everyone points to the benefit snatchers, but take a broad look and take int he tax avoiders and evaders too! Who is worse? The benefit snatchers who are generally (not all) doing it to survive, or the tax avoiders who are just wanting to evade what they should be paying to get an even bigger slice of pie!

Anyway, I got off track, Legal Aid should be trimmed, should be means tested in all courts, but the redefinition of Domestic Violence and abuse for Political reasons is just wrong.

The Justice Secretary presented the Governments plans for what is effectively the abolition of the Justice system yesterday.

Considering all the rhetoric before the election about being hard on crime, what was presented was nothing like what was hoped for.

Pleading guilty will now get you HALF off your sentence, rather than a third which is a blatant bribe to push people to plead guilty rather than go through the system. I think this is not a great move, there was already worries about defendants pleading guilty, even if they are innocent, in the thought that they might as well get the shorter sentence, to move to half, will make that worse.

We were promised a stronger permanent stance on knives, but that has now been ignored.

More people will be “rehabilitated” rather than going to prison, though it has been shown that the Probation service can only do so much. Firstly the Probation service (or whatever they will be called) needs the resources and facilities to make it work, and secondly, more importantly, the subject has to Want to change, if they don;t, then they won’t!

It seems that the justice system is now not about keeping the public safe and upholding justice, it is more about just acknowledging crime but ignoring it, for headlines.

Sadiq Khan (Shadow justice secretary) said the proposals were a “bluff on crime and a bluff on the causes of crime” and were really about reducing the prison population to cut costs.